>>1867939 (pb)
>>1868044 (pb)
>Maybe the charges are lightweights to flush out the big ones?
OK, I think I’ve got this figured out. Yes, that is exactly what is going down.
Charges were filed under the RICO Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
As bad as that may be in and of itself, it is hoped that evidence will be presented that can be used in the more important treason cases.
They’re not going to do the tit for tat FISA court strategy as suggested in >>1115420 because the ultimate goal is to return to a constitutional basis. Going for FISA warrants the same way the Deep State did would set a bad precedent for the future.
So instead, they will have plaintiffs file lesser charges in the civil courts that will present the opportunity to enter the more damning evidence into the record.
I assume that it does not matter much how long the cases take to try or who tries them. Ultimately, the outcome of these lesser cases won’t matter. What matters is how soon evidence is entered. As soon as that happens, the military tribunals can use it.
If the evidence has also been made public at this time, hopefully public outrage can now become properly placed.
Since the charges in the military tribunal will be different, this does not present a double jeopardy issue.
So it doesn’t matter, either, that the judge is a Clinton appointee. In fact, this situation may present yet another potential defendant for the military tribunals.
>>1105115
>>1115420
>>1129629
>>1115897